Has The Daily Show jumped the shark?

[Sampiro]

I love The Daily Show and would gladly bare children for Jon Stewart, but I fear that... the best days are past. The show just doesn't seem as funny or as fresh or as biting as it used to be and the latest slew of correspondents just isn't anywhere near the league of Colbert, Rocca, Helms and Cordry the Elder. Mr. and Mrs. Samantha Bee are hit'n'miss (both have some good shows to their credit but much of their stuff is just 'meh'), the new British commentators (who I assume have a career in the UK) just aren't that funny, Demetri Martin is a phrase meaning "let's see what's on CNN for a few minutes", Jon Hodgeson wouldn't be funny if he was wrestling with a monkey and both were wearing tutus, and the others I can't even remember their names. The Seat of Heat is just silly and needs to be done away with while "This Week in God" needs to come back, and I place Lewis Black to be on the comedy meter somewhere between Andy Rooney and Dennis Hastert.

On the other hand Jon Stewart is still one of the best interviewers on TV and has the most interesting guests. I loved the night that Larry King, who while not exactly a one man Woodward Bernstein does work on what is supposedly a news channel, did his fourth- that's FOURTH as in this many I I I I - show based around the death of Anna Nicole's son (a tragedy to be sure but 1- not really newsworthy beyond a mention and occasional update 2- there had been NO development in the case so he was just asking the same questions over and over 3- it's terribly invasive of the privacy of a woman not known for her excessive mental health in an intensely trying time [I loathe Anna Nicole but would have enough respect for her as a fellow human being to let her grieve in peace] while on the same night Jon Stewart, host of a comedy/entertainment series, had as his guest Pervez Musharraf. He's also one of the only hosts who not only interviews serious authors of non-fiction BUT actually knows what he's talking about- sometimes it's clear that he's even read the book but at all times he's at least read a good treatment and he or his staff has prepared good questions.

So what's your opinion: has TDS jumped the shark, or is it just in transition trying to find its sea legs again after major cast departures, or do you like it better now? Also, if you think it's broke how would you fix it?

Personally I'd bring Rocca back- since he's working for pet channel, wrote a "go nowhere fast" book on presidential pets and deadpanning his way through whatever "I LOVE THE ___" show that Michael Ian Black is already deadpanning his way through he'd probably take the job, but since it apparently hasn't been offered I'm guessing he left on mutually bad terms. I'd even bring back Frank DeCaro for occasional movie reviews or gay themed interviews (DeCaro's funniest in small doses). I'd stop doing scripted skits like the Borat thing or some of Colbert's crossovers as they just don't work and aren't what the shows about, and I'd also do occasional hour long specials when the news situation warrants it or have extended interviews available online (ITunes would be ideal- he's had several guests, particularly authors and politicians, that I'd love to see him talk to longer).

I wonder out of curiosity: if Jon Stewart, who is imo the best interviewer since Johnny Carson and an extremely well informed person, were offered a very lucrative contract with a show like 60 Minutes or his own "real" interview show on CNN or HBO, would he take it, or does he still consider himself a comedian only?

Chime in.

[Marley23]

I recently read a comment from one of the show's producers that said, approximately, "There's not much of a future for you on the Daily Show if your name isn't Jon Stewart." That's their biggest problem, I think - the show is becoming a springboard for other talent. I like Jon Hodgman and Jones and Bee are okay sometimes, but they have more turnover now. After Colbert left, Corddry stepped up for a while, but I feel like there's nobody even close to that level at this point. What really bugs me is that I keep sensing that none of the correspondents have characters. No matter which one of them is on, you can count on them shouting "WOOOO!!!" at least once a segment.

None of which means I'm writing off the show permanently.

[want2know]

I don't know about the shark-jumping part, but I agree with a lot of your post. Personally, I miss Beth Littleford! The new crop of correspondents are just adequate, but nothing more. And I always felt Corddry was way too snarky, even for TDS.

However, the news segments and interviews are still making up for the other inadequacies the show suffers from (though the ratio is rapidly approaching 50-50; beyond that, the fin may begin to surface soon.

Joe Bob Briggs' "God Stuff" was probably the best weekly segment of the show; I'd love to see him return.

Lewis Black not funny? Heretic!!!

As far as fixing the show, that's a tough one. The previous correspondents were so funny and talented; people like Colbert, Littleford and Carell are very hard to replace. I think it would take 1 good breakout talent to get the show's momentum going again; sadly, Carell was the last one of those, IMHO.

And as far as Stewart taking a lucrative deal to go elsewhere: I'm sure he already has received some offers--if he does decide to move on, I imagine he'd be smart enough to take the right one. "60 Minutes" is way too dry for someone with his comedic talents; I think a talk show would be the way to go. I've always felt he would be the only one capable of filling Letterman's shoes if Dave should decide to retire. Meanwhile, he's got a fairly lucrative sure thing going now--his decision to stay will probably be based more on that than his considering himself "just a comedian". His built-in cynicism is his protection against accepting just any deal.

[Otto]

Originally Posted by Sampiro

I love The Daily Show and would gladly bare children for Jon Stewart...

I certainly hope not, lest the FBI come a-knockin' on your door on a kiddie porn rap.

[jayjay]

Originally Posted by Sampiro

I love The Daily Show and would gladly bare children for Jon Stewart

They'll only do that for the episode with Mark Foley as a guest.

[kaylasdad99]

Originally Posted by Sampiro

I love The Daily Show and would gladly bare children for Jon Stewart,

Ya think Jon's likely to want you to?

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by want2know

And as far as Stewart taking a lucrative deal to go elsewhere: I'm sure he already has received some offers--if he does decide to move on, I imagine he'd be smart enough to take the right one.

He's making a good deal of money where he is, although I'm sure Letterman makes way, way more. The Daily Show may be the best fit for Stewart's talents - he does have to do his thing for the entire show and can rely on other people to be funny in a way I don't think a talk show host could. I'd wager that he also enjoys the status he has at TDS, but who knows.

[Raygun99]

FWIW, Samantha Bee's done This Week in God at least once since Corddry left.

[blinkingblinking]

"I love The Daily Show and would gladly bare children for Jon Stewart.."
Be careful of bear/bare. In our current society you should not say you will bare children to someone.
Ha ha ha

[Sampiro]

Originally Posted by blinkingblinking

Be careful of bear/bare. In our current society you should not say you will bare children to someone.
Ha ha ha

Hey, if it's good enough for The Bible then it's good enough for a Comedy Central host.

[Krokodil]

The weak players will inevitably rotate out and be replaced. Stewart, though, is at the top of his game and has an incredible slate of guests who would have been unthinkable for a show like this as recently as a year ago (John Ashcroft? President Musharref?).

While the show has definitely crossed some kind of threshold, it's for the better, on balance. I miss Mo Rocca too, but Rob Riggle has his moments.

[Bosstone]

While I agree that the current crop of correspondents aren't anywhere near as legendary as Colbert, Carrell, and Corddry, I think they do okay. Rob Riggle is funy in the same way that Patrick Warburton is hilarious; he's this big, square-chinned guy who looks like he should be in action movies, but instead is happily throwing himself into comedy routines. Then there's Aasif Mandvi, who's almost a match for Colbert as a composed, charismatic, and ironic correspondent. It's a shame they only bring him out for short green-screen segments, as I'd love to see him do more. John Oliver's a good correspondent, if not great, although his piece about the Civil War reenactments was hilarious.

What's almost sad, though, is that some days the bridge at the end of the show when Stewart and Colbert do their thing is the funniest part of TDS. It may be scripted, but Colbert almost always comes up with something great.

[blinkingblinking]

Originally Posted by Sampiro

Hey, if it's good enough for The Bible then it's good enough for a Comedy Central host.

I premsume this is a joke. But if not, open the Bible and look.Do not post links to christian websites.Or go to a book or site on common grammatical errors

[blinkingblinking]

Originally Posted by blinkingblinking

I premsume this is a joke. But if not, open the Bible and look.Do not post links to christian websites.Or go to a book or site on common grammatical errors

Sorry. Typo. 'presume'

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by BayleDomon

While I agree that the current crop of correspondents aren't anywhere near as legendary as Colbert, Carrell, and Corddry, I think they do okay. Rob Riggle is funy in the same way that Patrick Warburton is hilarious; he's this big, square-chinned guy who looks like he should be in action movies, but instead is happily throwing himself into comedy routines. Then there's Aasif Mandvi, who's almost a match for Colbert as a composed, charismatic, and ironic correspondent. It's a shame they only bring him out for short green-screen segments, as I'd love to see him do more.

True. Mandvi is getting good at what he does, and he's now the only one doing it. I don't know why, but I do think Riggle has some promise.

[mobo85]

Originally Posted by Sampiro

"This Week in God" needs to come back,

It never left. It's an infrequent segment hosted by someone else each time- Samantha Bee did it last. As was pointed out in one of the bridges to The Colbert Report, they still use Stephen's "beep noises" on the God Machine.

Originally Posted by Sampiro

Jon Hodgeson wouldn't be funny if he was wrestling with a monkey and both were wearing tutus

John Hodgeman is hit or miss (my favorite was his thing about the what-to-do-in-Iraq essay contest with a winning entry involving parachuting cobras that turn Sunnis into Shi'ites and vice versa). He's much funnier in the Mac ads and in his book The Areas of My Expertise (especially the parts about the attempt by hoboes to overthrow the U.S. government in the 1930s).

Demetri Martin is a phrase meaning "let's see what's on CNN for a few minutes"

Martin is hit-or-miss as well. I thought the recent look at OSU campus clubs while they were in Ohio was very funny, especially the tournament chart about who will be the ultimate one ("Jewish lesbians versus Pistol Club. I say Pistol Club...they've got pistols"). Hopefully, his job as Windows Vista spokesperson will keep him busy.

[SmackFu]

John Hodgeman is the funniest thing on The Daily Show.

[neutron star]

Originally Posted by Sampiro

I'd stop doing scripted skits like the Borat thing

I've been a loyal Daily Show viewer for the last few years, so I know that Borat has been a guest twice, but when was he ever in a skit?

I'm not doubting you; I'm just curious.

[gonzomax]

Comedy is always hit and miss. Thats the danger. Also what you find funny your spouse may not.
You are wrong about Lewis Black.He is great. Bee is more hit than miss. The English guy is growing on me. I have a lot of hope the new cast will work out.

[Gatopescado]

My .2Cents? Stop trying to shove everyone into the pidgen-hole of "Deadpan StraightMan" ala Colbert. Open up some new styles and let it ride.

Hodgeman, however, is well, there..., there..., there......genius, John.

Last week at Ohio State sucked, but maybe I'm biased. I'm a Trojan.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Gatopescado

My .2Cents? Stop trying to shove everyone into the pidgen-hole of "Deadpan StraightMan" ala Colbert. Open up some new styles and let it ride.

At no time did the correspondents all play it straight. I was saying that they're all doing the same thing now, and I don't think what they're doing is funny. I just think TDS works better when it stays closer to the tone of the news shows it's mocking.

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by Marley23

At no time did the correspondents all play it straight. I was saying that they're all doing the same thing now, and I don't think what they're doing is funny. I just think TDS works better when it stays closer to the tone of the news shows it's mocking.

The real problem with lots of the correspondent bits is that if the interviewee is on to them, they have to bear the brunt of the humor, which isn't funny. The very best bits are when the question shows where the kooks ideas lead - places where a normal reporter would never go.

Still, not even all the Colbert stuff was brilliant, and not all the old correspondents were great.

[anamnesis]

I know a lot of people loved Corddry and he essentially carried the torch in the wake of Colbert and Carrell leaving the show, but his style of delivery never really clicked for me (I really liked his younger brother Nate though, where'd he disappear to?) ... I miss the old era of correspondents like Mo Rocca, Beth Littleford, and Nancy Walls. Didn't Laura Kightlinger do a few shows many years ago too? I just never clicked with Corddry always being so sophomoric, lacking the kind of mock professionalism that I always thought made the show what it is. Colbert is one-of-a-kind in that he can maintain a straight face and be completely deadpan even when he's turning a statement around on someone without breaking a sweat. I feel like the show loses the illusion of being mock news when they roll out the goofballs like Ed Helms, Jason Jones, or Rob Corddry to start doing crude homoerotic innuendo, fart jokes, and taking off their pants to expose their flabby white legs and hairy guts. "Oh look! A naked, hairy, fat guy ... that's funny, right? Right?" Okay, so to each his own, but that's about the caliber of comedy I expect from those types. I think if they want to do funny and/or gay innuendo, they should bring back Frank DeCaro. He knew how to do it with flair.

TDS was lucky to have great talent early on. They haven't jumped any sharks, they're just trying to replace a lot of irreplaceable people that were easy to become attached to, so lately there are a lot of new faces trying to land a regular spot on the show. Comedians who have both a handle on the issues and the ability to deliver on a punchline are few and far between. The minute they start resorting to cheap jokes or stuff simply for the sake of shock value, I tend to dismiss them. As the OP points out, Stewart and Colbert possess the deadly combination of having a handle on the issues as well as superb comedic timing and flawless conversational skills. They know how to play to an audience, and can sense when a joke is falling flat. They always acknowledge it in a subtle way, whereas most of the fresh talent will just keep plugging along even when a joke is receiving a cold reception, leaving a disconnect between them and the audience. The segments that Colbert's had on his show with David Cross and (just yesterday) Tim Meadows playing equivalent pundit alter-egos seem to fall flat for the same reason ... they just lack delivery. In the words of Colbert, they "read the jokes to you", whereas Stewart and Colbert "feel the jokes at you".

I've never loved every correspondent on the show, but I think what the OP may be getting at is that the show's suffering from the law of diminishing returns. Turnover time on good talent is decreasing, while the amount of time invested in finding it seems to be going up.

[Moe]

Well, during the Colbert, Carrell, Cordrry, bee, era, to me that was a perfect lineup. Every single one of them just had the gift IMHO.

I think Dan Bakedahl has got every bit of talent that the old veterens do, but I can't for the life of me figure out why they don't use him more often.

Jason Jones just ain' got it. Sorry. I know you're Samantha's husband and you needed her help getting you a job and such, but you just ain't got that special spark.

Dimitry Martin is very hit or miss, but I do se potential there.

Lewis Black is all too unfunny these days considering how funny he actually was not too long ago,

I think the Middle Eastern correspondant was very funny the one or two times I saw him.

Still, I never miss a Daily Show.

Jumped the shark???

I say no way. I still love it, nay need it, nay...
crave it...

Thank you Daily Show. Please keep doing what you've been doing

[mr. jp]

It definitely has jumped the shark. The reporting segments are not as good since Colbert and Corddry left. Also, the main show is just much less funny. I figure that the reporters are also the general writers?

It was brilliant 1.5 year ago. Today I don't really watch it.

I would fix it by bringing in some better comedians, and more writers overall.

[Billdo]

I agree that the new crop of talent hasn't yet their footing (though I have a huge crush on Samantha Bee).

Still, I think the core problem with the Daily Show these days is that it is the midterm election season, and just about every day has a large lead story on either the elections or the war. It makes for a great Stewart intro, but it doesn't give the subsidary talent much to work with. They can't go out and build the wacky local stories when there is so much of immediate national significance going on.

I would wait until after the elections are over to see if the new group settles in.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by BayleDomon

Then there's Aasif Mandvi, who's almost a match for Colbert as a composed, charismatic, and ironic correspondent. It's a shame they only bring him out for short green-screen segments, as I'd love to see him do more.

Another vote for Mandvi and his earnest, dead-panned sarcasm.

[MilTan]

Yeah, Aasif Mandvi has me rolling every time he's on (too bad it's only been twice (?)). They should use him more often.

[Lissa]

Originally Posted by MilTan

Yeah, Aasif Mandvi has me rolling every time he's on (too bad it's only been twice (?)). They should use him more often.

Guys, why don't you drop the show an e-mail and let them know about it? They're probably trying to get a feel for the audience's preferences right now, and I bet they'd appreciate it. (They probably get a shit-load of e-mails telling them what they're doing wrong. Why not let them know when they're getting something right?)

[notsoheavyd]

Well one whether or not TDS has jumped the shark is Stewart himself.(Yes, I know that's heresy here.) Basically it's my impression much of the appeal of the show is to college kids and Jon is the "Hip Comic Host(tm)" on the show. The problem is that Jon isn't that young anymore and college kids can be pretty quick to turn on someone, especially if they notice "Hey wait, that guy is my dad's age." I mean look at how much greyer he is now Vs. a few years ago, it's really noticible now.(I think it'll get worse when he's pushing 50 in a couple of years.) I guess I'm talking more about how much longer the show can go with Stewart vs. it actually jumping the shark.(But I still think either they'll have to change the show so it appeals to its audience as it gets older or get a new younger comic as the fresh faced host and have Jon be an executive producer so they can keep the college crowd.)

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by notsoheavyd

Basically it's my impression much of the appeal of the show is to college kids and Jon is the "Hip Comic Host(tm)" on the show.

If that is the case, they are missing their target audience; according to a 2004 Neilsen ratings report, the median age of "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" airing is 35, while its median income is $67,000. A little older and richer than your average college-aged slacker.

[notsoheavyd]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

If that is the case, they are missing their target audience; according to a 2004 Neilsen ratings report, the median age of "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" airing is 35, while its median income is $67,000. A little older and richer than your average college-aged slacker.

Ok, so half his audience is under 35 and half is over.(I'd still like to know the distribution. IE is it a huge group around 35 or is it more spread out?) Unfortunately that still means alot of his audience is young, IE twenty somethings. I still think as Stewart ages this portion of his audience, which is a huge part of it btw, will tune out unless he does something. I still think that he's going to have to adjust to take this into account.(IE he could groom a young comedian to replace him at 11PM and then take a new gig for an older audience at 8pm. Not sure if TDS would stay at 11 and the new show at 8 or 9 or vice versa. Personally I'd keep TDS at 11 with the same focus and the new show with the show for older people at the earlier time.)

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by notsoheavyd

Ok, so half his audience is under 35 and half is over.(I'd still like to know the distribution. IE is it a huge group around 35 or is it more spread out?) Unfortunately that still means alot of his audience is young, IE twenty somethings.

I don't think you understand statisitical averages. If a lot of his audience is young (twenty somethings) it means that an equal percentage is old (forty somethings). If you start catering to one group, it may be at the expense of the other, and there is no guarantee that what you gain in young viewers will offset what you lose in older viewers. I think you are overstating the power and importance of the college age viewer to TDS.

[notsoheavyd]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

I don't think you understand statisitical averages. If a lot of his audience is young (twenty somethings) it means that an equal percentage is old (forty somethings). If you start catering to one group, it may be at the expense of the other, and there is no guarantee that what you gain in young viewers will offset what you lose in older viewers. I think you are overstating the power and importance of the college age viewer to TDS.

I am? It's not an average, it's a median. Half of his audience is under 35 and half is older, we know that for sure. Admittedly the stats don't say what the distribution of this is but still a large portion of his market is a younger viewer(IE 18-35. Your stats suggest a decent group in the late 20's and earlier 30's for those income stats. However even those ages aiming for college kids would help.) While much of this isn't actually college kids they're still largely group the same and still from your stats a very large portion of his audience is young.(IE 50%) Admittedly my original statement was a little narrow but still his major demographic is a young one so he should be appealing to that demographic.(Watching the show he does do hip and irreverrent so from what I've seen yes he appeals to that demographic.) I still think he's going to have a problem as he ages when he tries to keep that audience.(Since it because harder and harder to pull off as you get older.) I still think they can avoid the problem but I really see a train wreck in a 5-6 years if Stewart doesn't take to heart he's getting older and his market will change.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by notsoheavyd

I still think as Stewart ages this portion of his audience, which is a huge part of it btw, will tune out unless he does something.

Maybe he could turn on a secret aging weapon that will make that portion of the audience age at the same rate as himself.

Daniel

[notsoheavyd]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

Maybe he could turn on a secret aging weapon that will make that portion of the audience age at the same rate as himself.

Daniel

Right, and then he could get rid of the 8pm replay and replace it with a new show that would appeal to that new "magically aged" demographic.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by notsoheavyd

Right, and then he could get rid of the 8pm replay and replace it with a new show that would appeal to that new "magically aged" demographic.

Okay, now I can't tell whether you're not getting my sarcasm, or I'm not getting yours .

Daniel

[treis]

I'm surprised that many people dislike Jason Jones. He's done some of my most favorite interviews. The Blajoavich/morning after pill one was great. As was the one where he interviewed the minute man guy on the Canadian border. I think he was the one that did the Florida condo rules one too.

[Bryan Ekers]

I find The Daily Show to be consistently hilarious, with the exception of the Aasif Mandvi, who annoys me for some reason.

Originally Posted by blinkingblinking

Do not post links to christian websites.

Well, biblegateway.com is technically a Judeo-Christian website, as it covers the Old Testament as well (and specific Christian symbols like crosses and the ichthus and preachy text of any kind are refreshingly absent), and it's a useful researching tool, so what are you talking about?

"Bare" appears on other websites' records of the King James version of Genesis 4:1, like here. Presumably the "typo" was in the original 1611 text and the distinction between "bare" and "bear" is a more modern convention.

[jjimm]

I was very excited to discover last year that it was on British TV (albeit a bowdlerised, "euro-centric" version) and have been watching it for a while now, and all I can say is... it's jumped the shark. Even, alas, Jon Stewart, who I generally think is a genius. It's barely raised a smile recently.

Also, blinkingblinking, can I have a couple hits of what you're on, please? First, there's no prohibition on linking to Christian websites here. Second, if having the Bible online, rather than on paper, negates it, I wonder how you'd have fared were you alive when Gutenberg first got his shit together...

[Nanoda]

I sure hope it hasn't - Indecision 2006 is tomorrow and I'm looking forward to it. Coincidentally, I was just reading up on John Hodgman ('cause he's one of my favourite characters on the show), and came across this nytimes article (linked from this page if it goes 'sign in' again...) about almost this very topic.

Basically, a lot of talented, long-historied 'correspondants' left the show at around the same time, and it's taking a bit to work things out with the new crowd. I think they're doing pretty good rounding things out; I've noticed that of all the mentions of disliking a contributor, there's another of someone saying they're their favourite reporter.

I do agree with Marley23 in that they need to work on their characters more. Rob Corrdry and Ed Helms especially were quite distinct when on the show. Most of the latest correspondants have only stuck with the deadpan reporter bit, but I think they'll get it though. I myself like Jason Jones, and while I was iffy on Aasif with his first couple appearances, I've found his latest few quite engaging.

As an aside, there's really no other unbiased venue that's willing to call bullshit on your political leaders. (And boy do they need it - fake auto-dialing pretending to be the opposing party, electronic voting machines with shenanigans called on them every other week, campaigns aren't complete without evil-music laden attack ads...)

Well, I'm still watching anyway.

[Marley23]

I've never been a big John Oliver fan, but he was great tonight. And learning that he actually broke his nose during that Civil War assignment definitely increased my respect for him - I'd thought it was just a bizarre detour in that report.

[blinkingblinking]

Originally Posted by jjimm

I was very excited to discover last year that it was on British TV (albeit a bowdlerised, "euro-centric" version) and have been watching it for a while now, and all I can say is... it's jumped the shark. Even, alas, Jon Stewart, who I generally think is a genius. It's barely raised a smile recently.

Also, blinkingblinking, can I have a couple hits of what you're on, please? First, there's no prohibition on linking to Christian websites here. Second, if having the Bible online, rather than on paper, negates it, I wonder how you'd have fared were you alive when Gutenberg first got his shit together...

I was not saying there was any prohibition on linking to Christian websites. That was just my opinion. I am not a mod here.
I did not know the history of bare and bear. It seems I stand corrected. But my original point still is valid. In our time you must say 'bear children'. If you say 'bare children', you are opening yourself up to ridicule.

[susan]

Presumably the "typo" was in the original 1611 text and the distinction between "bare" and "bear" is a more modern convention

Probably not a typo, but an archaic past tense, where today we'd say "bore."

[WordMan]

Originally Posted by BayleDomon

While I agree that the current crop of correspondents aren't anywhere near as legendary as Colbert, Carrell, and Corddry, I think they do okay. Rob Riggle is funy in the same way that Patrick Warburton is hilarious; he's this big, square-chinned guy who looks like he should be in action movies, but instead is happily throwing himself into comedy routines. Then there's Aasif Mandvi, who's almost a match for Colbert as a composed, charismatic, and ironic correspondent. It's a shame they only bring him out for short green-screen segments, as I'd love to see him do more. John Oliver's a good correspondent, if not great, although his piece about the Civil War reenactments was hilarious.

+1

I really enjoy Aasif Mandvi - his response to Stewart's question about whether Ohio's secretary of state, Kenneth Blackwell (?), an R who was head of the election campaign and made voting for Dem's very hard "Aasif - doesn't that have the appearance of a conflict of interest?" "No, Jon, that's the definition of a conflict of interest." had me rolling with his delivery...

[WordMan]

Originally Posted by Lissa

Guys, why don't you drop the show an e-mail and let them know about it? They're probably trying to get a feel for the audience's preferences right now, and I bet they'd appreciate it. (They probably get a shit-load of e-mails telling them what they're doing wrong. Why not let them know when they're getting something right?)

Does anybody know the email to use? I went to the Daily Show page at Comedy Central

http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/t...ow/index.jhtml

and didn't see it - now I may just be a clueless twit, so if you do see it there, you are welcome to mock me and then point it out...

[Pushkin]

I agree that Dave Gorman and the other English comedian seem for some reason to be desperate to carry some strange stereotype, not funny at all.

Dave Gorman for one is much much funnier left to his own devices, such as his Googlewhack adventure and "Are you Dave Gorman"?

[gigi]

Originally Posted by Moe

I think Dan Bakedahl has got every bit of talent that the old veterens do, but I can't for the life of me figure out why they don't use him more often.

Same here.

I am looking forward to the joint show tonight.

[kelly5078]

I think the show's in good shape. Corddry is a big loss, for sure (I think he's funnier than Colbert). Also, Samantha Bee is, and always has been, weak. And Jason Jones just sucks. But everyone else is solid, and Stewart just gets better and better.

[Exapno Mapcase]

I like the newer guys a lot. John Oliver, Aasif Mandvi, and John Hodgman have an edge to them. Samantha Bee and Jason Jones should stay home and raise their kid and leave television. Dan Bakkedahl can join them. Any week with a Lewis Black commentary is good one.

Everybody seems to like a different set of correspondents, don't they? I don't know if that's good or bad for the show. I know I'm pretty much in the minority in that I hate the field segments, in which they make fun of whoever they're interviewing. Those are disappearing since it's harder to hide who they are than it used to be. Hoorah for that.

Yeah, overall Stewart looks like he wishes he could find a new way to be sharp and fresh after so many years. The good nights are still very good and the bad nights aren't yet horrid so he's trapped in those proverbial golden handcuffs.